One of the arguments for Bitcoin is as an alternative reserve currency. In fact for many people it is THE primary argument for the worth of Bitcoin.

"A distributed peer to peer currency."

However, there is already an almost perfect analog of this in the real world, by people who actually matter in finance, on a scale that actually means something. It's the SDR, or Special Drawing Rights of the IMF.

1. It's hardly being used, and rather insignificantly at that.2. Decimating Bitcoin is no different than inflation or "dilution."

Let me repeat that because it bears reiteration:

Decimating Bitcoin is no different than inflation.

No, there is a huge different. If I have 10 bitcoins, and they get decimated x10, I now have a full 100 bitcoins each worth only 10% of the original. If I have 10 bitcoins and the total number of bitcoins is increased 10 fold (inflation), I still only have 10 bitcoins, but each is worth only 10% of the original. Big, big difference.

You get a fair share during decimating. You get diluted during inflation.

I trade bitcoin options at https://bitoption.org/ ... Join me.I play poker at https://betco.in/ ... Join me.Support the bitcoin economy, what do you do?Tips: 1NfXhiTFEdKQTdLy49s6DYAP1K7MeFWyao

1. It's hardly being used, and rather insignificantly at that.2. Decimating Bitcoin is no different than inflation or "dilution."

Let me repeat that because it bears reiteration:

Decimating Bitcoin is no different than inflation.

Repeating a claim is not a sufficient substitute for a valid argument. I'm not even sure you know what "decimating" means.

If my usage of "decimate" leads you to question my knowledge of its meaning I am absolutely certain you have no idea what it means.

Still, you choose to answer to this rather than the previous posts which countered your argument. Although, you never actually made an argument.

Why don't you tell us what decimating means, in your definition, so that we can be clear about your claim. It sounds to me like you're saying that if we move the decimal place one to the right, this is exactly the same as issuing 9*21million new bitcoins. Is this an accurate account of your meaning?

1. It's hardly being used, and rather insignificantly at that.2. Decimating Bitcoin is no different than inflation or "dilution."

Let me repeat that because it bears reiteration:

Decimating Bitcoin is no different than inflation.

Repeating a claim is not a sufficient substitute for a valid argument. I'm not even sure you know what "decimating" means.

If my usage of "decimate" leads you to question my knowledge of its meaning I am absolutely certain you have no idea what it means.

dec·i·mate/ˈdesəˌmāt/Verb1. Kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage of.2. Drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something): "plant viruses that can decimate yields".

or this from Wikipedia:Decimation (Latin: decimatio; decem = "ten") was a form of military discipline used by officers in the Roman Army to punish mutinous or cowardly soldiers. The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth."

Now, you could mean "a technique for reducing the number of samples in a discrete-time signal. " (also from wikipedia, but that would make even less sense.

If you destroy bitcoins, the rest become more valuable because of the law or supply and demand.

If you imply that somehow we can move the decimal. effectively increasing the number of Bitcoins by ten, then you are simply pissing into the wind. not. gonna. happen. Can't happen in fact without the consensus of the very people who would stand to lose the most if it happened.

I understand language. I don't go by the definition you just found at Google.

Told you. Now he is hoping someone jumps on the "you don't use language the way it is defined?" argument, because that could go on forever and he'll get a kick out of it the whole way.

Actually I caren't. I've simply shown that people who rely on pithy internet searches to do all of their reasoning for them are inferior to people who reason based on fundamental understanding. That is the end of this particular argument.

Now as for Bitcoin being the poor man's SDR, my assessment still stands.

I understand language. I don't go by the definition you just found at Google.

Told you. Now he is hoping someone jumps on the "you don't use language the way it is defined?" argument, because that could go on forever and he'll get a kick out of it the whole way.

Actually I caren't. I've simply shown that people who rely on pithy internet searches to do all of their reasoning for them are inferior to people who reason based on fundamental understanding. That is the end of this particular argument.

Now as for Bitcoin being the poor man's SDR, my assessment still stands.

This is getting amusing. Pithy is actually a compliment. You would have gotten more mileage out of the word "pedantic". You assessment never stood in the first place. Nobody who has the power to move the decimal has any incentive to actually do so.

I understand language. I don't go by the definition you just found at Google.

Told you. Now he is hoping someone jumps on the "you don't use language the way it is defined?" argument, because that could go on forever and he'll get a kick out of it the whole way.

Actually I caren't. I've simply shown that people who rely on pithy internet searches to do all of their reasoning for them are inferior to people who reason based on fundamental understanding. That is the end of this particular argument.

Now as for Bitcoin being the poor man's SDR, my assessment still stands.

This is getting amusing. Pithy is actually a compliment. You would have gotten more mileage out of the word "pedantic". You assessment never stood in the first place. Nobody who has the power to move the decimal has any incentive to actually do so.